From: John Reiser <jreiser@BitWagon.com>
To: Jeff Dike <jdike@karaya.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Julian Seward <jseward@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Valgrind meets UML
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:15:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E04939F.1020404@BitWagon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200212211607.LAA01515@ccure.karaya.com
Jeff Dike wrote:
> jreiser@BitWagon.com said:
>
>>In order to prevent races between valgrind for UML and kernel
>>allocators which valgrind does not "know", then the VALGRIND_*
>>declarations being added to kernel allocators should allow for
>>expressing the concept "atomically change state in both allocator and
>>valgrind".
>
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> There are no atomicity problems between UML and valgrind.
If so, then you are fortunate. But in the abstract, and more importantly
in the mind of the maintainer of a lock-free SMP allocator who is trying
to allow simultaneous allocation and valgrind of the allocator, then such
atomicity problems are real. The VALGRIND_* statements should allow
the conscientious and meticulous maintainer to express the correct
semantics, even though the current implementation of valgrind for UML
might not [have to] take advantage of all of the properties of such a
precise description. If nothing else, then such a maintainer will invent
his own VALGRIND_* usage to express simultaneous {allocator, valgrind}
state transitions precisely.
--
John Reiser, jreiser@BitWagon.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-21 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-20 2:41 Valgrind meets UML Jeff Dike
2002-12-20 15:26 ` John Reiser
2002-12-20 22:58 ` Jeff Dike
2002-12-20 23:32 ` John Reiser
2002-12-21 2:49 ` Jeff Dike
2002-12-21 7:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2002-12-21 16:05 ` Jeff Dike
2002-12-21 14:40 ` John Reiser
2002-12-21 16:07 ` Jeff Dike
2002-12-21 16:15 ` John Reiser [this message]
2002-12-21 18:57 ` Jeff Dike
2002-12-21 19:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3E04939F.1020404@BitWagon.com \
--to=jreiser@bitwagon.com \
--cc=jdike@karaya.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=jseward@acm.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox